Mr. Brian Killoran:

I will expand a little on some of the integration and support points that were made, including by the MRCI. When service providers can give the greatest clarity possible to people they are working with, either as an independent law centre such as we provide or in another context, we believe it not only improves their chances of engaging with a process or getting over the trauma they have gone through but also of potentially engaging with investigations. We welcome the suggested removal from the Bill of the necessity for people to co-operate with investigations. Where adequate supports are put in place to enable a person to be reintegrated essentially, it puts the person in a situation where he or she can better co-operate and will ultimately assist in the prosecution of traffickers.

I draw attention to the accommodation issue surrounding direct provision. I know it has been said in many environments multiple times but it is worthy of reflection again. As Deputy Carroll MacNeill said, we have been talking about this issue for a number of years. In fairness to the Department of Justice, accommodation was well progressed under it had the remit for it. It was then moved across to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which is the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. We have not seen any movement on the proposals, which have been mentioned a number of times, for shelter accommodation to be developed, even on a pilot basis, to accommodate victims of trafficking. A small number of them are outside the direct provision system. There is no clear reason that this matter has not been progressed. We understand it is to come about in quarter 1 of next year. We would welcome the committee's engagement on the issue because movement on the accommodation rights of victims of trafficking is a substantial barrier to people being reintegrated into society and getting over the trauma they are in. We will have had numerous instances through the years of a victim of trafficking in a room sharing a room with a number of other people, some of whom are coming and going, while the victim of trafficking remains there for a number of months and even, in some cases, a couple of years. In those kinds of instances, it is almost impossible for them to be reintegrated and get over the ordeal they have gone through. The pieces are in place to progress the accommodation issue but that has not happened as of yet. We we need to see movement on that.

On the safeguards that should exist in the system, such as appeal mechanisms, these are standard in these types of circumstances. As service providers, it is normal that cases that are presented will vary. There needs to be an inbuilt mechanism whereby appeals can be made to avoid the only other option being judicial review. To have a significant gap between an initial decision and a judicial review is not acceptable for anybody. We need an appeals process within that as well as acceptable timelines for decisions. If we can explain to somebody sitting on the other side of a desk in a support service of some kind what the expected timeline for decisions is, what the expected level of support will be and how that will look and provide as much transparency and coherency around that as possible, it assists everybody in the circumstance. The Bill presents an opportunity to flesh that out significantly and put as much of it as possible into legislation.